UGA-2K-A vs. UGA-165 performance at same resolution.


#1

Hi,
I was interested in purchasing either the UGA-2K-A or UGA-165 VGA/DVI/HDMI adapter to drive a monitor with a resolution of 1680x1050. I understand that both of these adapters would support this resolution, but was wondering if I would notice any performance increase in going with the UGA-2K-A model. (I’m guessing that the real bottleneck would be the CPU and/or USB bus, but just wanted to make sure.)

Thanks,
Matt


#2

Hi Matt,

Thanks for asking!

And the answer is very simple: at the same resolution, the performance will be exactly identical between the UGA-2K-A (which has a DislpayLink 195 chip in it) and the UGA-165 (which has a DisplayLink 165).

Now in contrast, the UGA-125 (which has a DisplayLink 125 chip) will have performance differences, as it has just a single decode engine (a single USB enpoint that rendering happens on).

!](https://sslproxy.getsatisfaction.com/sslproxy/SWhAdDNLMG5zdGFuVGlWenmLbJDGd3CABhjZermgcystANA4T6nd0pzV0fSzBRRGOd17A4b8ZLwi6-HESbXI0nKou9BGBcFr33qJ_e69OXc35U6LyKYoz9Z5Wb9KSdw36u3qMXzmeFMrCvcDRRdK3g==.PNG)](http://s3.amazonaws.com/satisfaction-production/s3_images/425742/DL-1x5-Table.PNG)

With more details at http://displaylink.com/displaylink_ha…

Outside of which DisplayLink chip and driver version used, it’s actually hard for an adapter to have any significant effect on performance any direction.

As a user, the biggest effect you can have on performance is running at the lowest resolution that still looks great on your monitor (or, similarly, pick a monitor that’s physically large with less pixel resolution). Fewer pixels will mean less demand on the 480Mbps USB 2.0 bus.

So sometimes the UGA-125 actually has higher perceived performance, just because it has a lower max mode, and therefore has less pixels it has to compress with the CPU and move over USB.

Again, thanks for the question! Hope that explains the differences.

Bernie


#3